If NBC wants to support the effort of Joe Biden and Carl Levin to adopt a new resolution undercutting the 2002 version that authorized President Bush to go to war against Iraq, let it put Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann out there to make the case. But please don't misrepresent to the public what that 2002 resolution [full text here] said.On this morning's "Today," NBC reporter John Yang asserted the following:
"That 2002 measure allowed the president to go after weapons of mass destruction and topple Saddam Hussein. There were no weapons and Saddam's been executed."
View video here.
Whether intentionally or not, Yang misrepresented the scope of what the 2002 resolution authorized the president to do. Here is the verbatim text of the section of the 2002 resolution setting for the the authorization:SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
Let's agree that UN resolutions are no longer a factor. But, as per 3(a)(1), the Bush administration indisputably views the situation in Iraq as "a continuing threat" to the national security of the United States. We have heard numerous administration representatives make the case that if we were to withdraw now, Iraq would become a staging place for Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups to launch attacks against the US and its allies. One thing is clear, the authorization, contrary to Yang's characterization, was in no way limited to the toppling of Saddam and the removal of WMDs.Now it's true that the prefatory language of the resolution -- the "whereas" clauses -- makes reference to WMDs and the hostility of the then current Iraqi regime. But such clauses have no binding effect. They are the garnish. The meat is the Authorization clause, which clearly continues to justify continued US involvement. But even if the prefatory language were relevant, it also includes a "whereas" establishing that "it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region." That would clearly encompass the current activities within Iraq.
Perhaps the best evidence that the current resolution remains entirely adequate to justify continuing military action in Iraq is the very fact that the Dems want to adopt a new one. If the 2002 resolution no longer authorized what the Bush administration is currently doing in Iraq, the Dems would be so arguing, perhaps even bringing a lawsuit seeking to establish that in continuing to prosecute the war the Bush administration is acting outside the law. That instead the Dems are seeking to adopt a new resolution is proof that they recognize that the current resoluton continues to authorize our continued efforts in Iraq.
But no doubt Biden and Levin will appreciate NBC's efforts to help make the case on their behalf.
UPDATE: Appearing on this morning's "Meet the Press," co-sponsor Carl Levin told Tim Russert that the 2002 resolution was "very broad" and "pretty much authorizes the president to do whatever he wants." Compare and contrast with Yang's claim that the resolution only "allowed the president to go after weapons of mass destruction and topple Saddam Hussein." Will NBC be embarrassed that in its eagerness to undermine the Bush administration, it was willing to go further than even a sponsor of the new resolution himself?
Mark was in Iraq in November. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Biden
February 25, 2007 - 09:39 ET by iveseenitallJoe's a plagiarist. At least he can get it right when he refers to what has been written by others in the past. Scheech!
NEVER, NEVER trust a liberal
On Neil Kinnock
February 25, 2007 - 21:27 ET by UnsaneHey, perhaps this time he hired Neil Kinnock as his speechwriter. :-)
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Ah, Joe Biden. Our brain damaged friend in the Senate.
February 25, 2007 - 09:48 ET by acaiguanaAh, Joe Biden. Our brain damaged friend in the Senate.
What is the real purpose of this silly idea?
To keep the pressure on Bush? Marginalize Bush further? How can they marginalize Bush further? His poll numbers suck; his public relations suck; his press coverage sucks; now they want to spend their time in another exercise in futility?
There is absolute zero chance of this resolution passing. So, why are they doing it?
It must have to do with Cindy Sheehan and her ilk. I can think of no other reason for it.
This will all come back to bite the Democrats in the end. They think their finest hour was destroying Nixon which they think was because of their stand on the Vietnam war; but in effect was really Nixon's fault alone. And after they destroyed Nixon they self-destructed with Carter, Mondale and McCarthey. They lost the Senate and the House and any chance to be regarded as saviors of our National Security.
So, why are they doing it? Is this the only brilliant strategy they can determine by which to win the Presidency? Hoo Boy, where are their ideas? As a Party.
It certainly isn't obvious to anyone other than self-deluded nut cases that the Democrats have a 'mandate' in the House or Senate to do anything other than blabber on; I guess that is what they are doing.
Well, at the more base level if they keep this junk up it keeps them from doing much harm in other areas of my life.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
Another great post Mark. Tha
February 25, 2007 - 11:11 ET by rimskyAnother great post Mark. Thanks. It's helpful to go back and read the resolution as a reminder of just how united Congress was back then. Of course some of the RESOLVED minds from back then, like Biden, have no problem going back on their word.
Question: These resolutions - What exactly does a resolution do? Resolutions aren't law of the land like a bill passed in both chambers and signed by the President. How legally binding is a resolution?
Some of the clauses in the 2002 resolution, as you say, have no binding effect, but then there are the authorizing clauses, which imply something legally binding.
IMO, resolutions are very unsettling. It's just a way for a group of people to say, 'Not for nothing but here's what we think.' An easy way to commit to something.. without committing to something.. I hate it!
So here's stoneless Biden, wanting to resolve that his original resolution (he voted for it 2002, right?) was, UNresolved? I don't know.. idiocy!
And, now that we know for cer
February 25, 2007 - 11:34 ET by ucAnd, now that we know for certain that Hillary's move to New York was to launch a run for the White House it does make more sense that "Farenheit 9/11" could/should have been a more natural and maybe acurate movie were it to delve into Clintons as much more likely behind any American involvement in such than those highlighted by Michael Moore. It sure delivered more smoke and mirrors for their past that proved helpful in putting her in the limelight and also cleared path for her to have championed rights for Taliban and Al Qaeda Women in 1990's but not have to be held responsible for and not have to carry the negatives of war neccessary to make such possible.
She is still flop - flipping too much for CNBC's Jim Cramer's comment today that Hillary is good for the economy. These are not the easy nineties where the President could let the economy almost run itself.
V - Carl Levin says 5000 Al Qaeda in Iraq
February 25, 2007 - 11:58 ET by pearlV - Carl Levin says 5000 Al Qaeda in Iraq
This morning on Meet The Press, Carl Levin said there are 5,000 al Qaeda members in Iraq.
What's his plan to achieve victory over those terrorists? Pull out our forces and make the Iraqis fight our battle?
V for Victory
5,000 al-Queda in Iraq. If
February 25, 2007 - 12:06 ET by kathleenirish5,000 al-Queda in Iraq. If you know how many are there, do you know how many are here?
"He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare, and he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere" -Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, 4th Islamic Caliph
pearl, don't you know that
February 25, 2007 - 19:03 ET by motherbeltpearl, don't you know that those 5000 al Queda are only in Iraq because we are there? They will all leave as soon as we do!! Neat, huh?
Give poor Joe a break, he's
February 25, 2007 - 12:39 ET by MudhenGive poor Joe a break, he's still under the delusion that he'll be President some day and thinks whatever pearls of wisdom he spouts on TV actually have some realavance in the real world. It must be a terrible burden he's under after realizing that Obama has more of a following with less than 2 years in the Senate, than Joe will ever have.
...
February 25, 2007 - 13:03 ET by JnobleEvery time I see or hear Joe Biden, I hear the 'Great One' Mark Levin yelling "JOE BIDEN! THE DUMBEST MAN IN THE SENATE! THAT'S RIGHT, I SAID THE DUMBEST!"
Mark Levin rules! :-)
Bush didn't even need the resolution
February 25, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Gary HallBush didn't even need the darn resolution. I seem to remember that there were several folks from the Clinton administration, back in 2002 and 2003, offering up the view that President Bush did not need additional authority to remove Saddam. I know for a fact that Clinton is on record in saying that Bush did not need additional UN resolutions.
Sen. Levin - any interview with Levin sould begin with tape from his statement on MSNBC's hardball back in Nov of 2005, when he stated that it was a fact that Saddam had nuclear bombs. Then he can look into the camera and say what ever he wishes to say.
Democrats would like to expan
February 25, 2007 - 16:05 ET by GregEDemocrats would like to expand on a new trend, that being to only create non-binding resolutions. Then putting a "yes" vote to it is something they can always pull back later if things don't go as they first thought. This way they can be correct 100% of the time. Kinda like when finding averages or medians, tossing out the highest score and lowest and working with everything else. For Democrats, toss out all the wrong decisions so the percentages of being right are thru the roof. As far as they're concerned, people are too dumb to catch on anyway..............or actually, the media will provide the necessary assistance to ensure it.
Saddam got 100% of his people's vote. Amazing eh? Golly gee, how could we possibly want to have rid the world of someone so very popular and loved?
These people will stop at not
February 25, 2007 - 16:40 ET by bigtimerThese people will stop at nothing...absloutely nothing to ensure our defeat if possible.....despicable, slithering, slimey low-life creatures.
The enemy within in all their collective wisdom is doing all it can to pressure Congress to enforce the slow-bleed and cut off funds.....when Congress comes back in session this week....all for their own hatred of conservatives, their hatred for the President, and to satisfy their money base contributor's with the likes of move.on and Soros types...they think this is going to help them win in '08....I think it is about the most foolish strategy I have seen in a long time...especially since some of the resolutions/bills/amendments, whatever word you want to use, will never pass in Congress...or Constitutionally...other than power of the purse...and that will not pass either.
Hollywood Joe will never make it through the primaries as it is....I guess as usual he will stoop to anything...and we all know what NBC and sister stations are anyway.....
Impeach the MSM!
February 25, 2007 - 17:06 ET by whodatImpeach the MSM! They have successfully undermined the presidency of our nation and are an ongoing threat to national security!
whodat...Sure wished that pos
February 25, 2007 - 17:32 ET by bigtimerwhodat...
Sure wished that possible...too bad we can't strangle them financially, seems the only thing that talks...and that's iffy.
It is beyond shameful what they have done and are now doing...every single one of them in all aspects of the media that are bound and determined to destroy this President and make sure they work with the enemy, because that is exactly what they have done and are doing, what happens...they get Pulitzers, instead of bars in front of their faces....for a very long time.
Iraq Bush
February 26, 2007 - 12:26 ET by pbanks7(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
The key phrase here is as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.
The President can do whatever he wants. Period. The Democratics hate that. This is what Levin means by "too broad." He will put politics over security if the D's can benefit.
I have been voting against the disgraceful, partisan, socialist Sen. Levin for 20 years, and now he's in charge of the Senate "Disarm the Services" committee again.
He wants to shackle the president to guarantee that we lose the war, without taking the blame, just as they did in Veet-nam. Then they can blame Bush for getting us into an unwinnable war, and for losing it. Disgraceful.
You can bet the only place you'll hear/see/read about the 5000 AQI is on hate radio and hate web sites like Newsbusters, just like his statement that everybody knew Sadaam had nukes.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.